Monday, November 28, 2011

Dear Conservatives,

Can you people please get yourself a foreign policy position more coherent than "Whatever Barack Obama Does Is Wrong"?

I had to put up with that from your opponents for eight years. Remember how they'd piss and moan about oppressive genocidal foreign governments stomping on their people, moaning about Darfur and plastering their Volvos with "Free Tibet!" stickers, but god forbid we actually did anything about any genocidal foreign dictators, because then George Bush was a warmonger and yadda-yadda, give peace a chance. Remember that?

Well, now you're doing it, too, and it's every bit as annoying coming from your side.

No wonder Herman Cain got brain-freeze when asked about Barry's position on Libya: You could bounce around the right side of the blogosphere and see the Libyan intervention being derided as timid and not aggressive enough as well as condemned as another unnecessary military entanglement overseas, often on the same web page.

Is Barry supposed to topple Assad? Keep his nose out of Egypt? Intervene, or mind his own business? Are we trying to save money, or are we supposed to keep deploying carrier battlegroups like JP-5 grows on trees?


Desertrat said...

Tam, you have a point there, but if you part your hair right, it won't show. (Sorry about that; it's just a character defect.)

The Obaminator's problem, seems like, is that he's overly accommodating when he should be firm and aggressive when aggression is not called for. IOW, usually wrong, regardless of the subject. Reminiscent of Jerry Brown as CalGov, the flip-flopping windshield wiper.

Pretty much what one would expect from somebody with no particular track record in life. He is merely proving that not all OJT works.

Bubblehead Les. said...

But, but, how can the REMFs at the Pentagon get their Tickets punched if we don't put Boots on the Ground? And Crom Forbid that the ordinary Middle East Citizen throw off their corrupt Dictators through Mass Uprisings! Only a Conservative President is allowed to execute "Regime Change," and only with M1 Abrams!

But then, American Military Policy since Korea hasn't made much sense to me, either.

Joseph said...

Technically, JP5 was a tree at some point right? :P

Anonymous said...

Is there such thing as a right answer when it comes to the Middle East? No matter what you do, it comes down to supporting either a tyrant or an Islamist. Which one is which is left as an exercise to the reader.


Unknown.Rodent said...

You hit the nail on the head with

"You could bounce around the right side of the blogosphere and see the Libyan intervention being derided as timid and not aggressive enough as well as condemned as another unnecessary military entanglement overseas, often on the same web page."

While there is a great deal of "The opposite of what Barry says" that goes around, I don't think it rises to anywhere near the level you saw under Bush 43. That could just be because in general the right side of the spectrum mostly lacks the cheerleading bullhorn that is television (with the exception of FOX). Many on the right side applauded the intervention in Libya, Barry still has strong support on the right for Afghanistan, stronger by far than his own partisans.

I think maybe what you see on the right is a less unified belief in what the correct foreign policy should be than you have on the left. I'm not sure there is actually as much of a disconnect as one might think for someone who possibly cheered the Iraq mission, now saying We're broke and can't afford any more of this. Yes were were broke then, but I don't think people realized just how broke we were, now there isn't any hiding the fact if you have a pulse.

Firehand said...

One of the big problems with Libya was Obama saying "Hey, this is just a small action, so I don't have to bother getting Congress to approve anything. Now go away, I have more Light to Bring."

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I thought he did a good job with the details of the Pacific trip. Verbal gaffs aside. Good timing, too, with China distracted by internal power struggles to squawk much. So, good job, Barry. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

I don't think the Left ever did a "Good job, W" tho. Even on stuff the left likes.

Panamared said...

Unfortunately, I think you have hit upon one of the most insidious side of human nature. It is easiest to deny that your mortal enemy can do anything right.

In general I still believe that conservatives do a better job of admitting the opposition occasionally gets it right.

In the long run, I don't believe we have a choice, if we want to keep our gun rights, but I do admit sometimes I have to hold my nose when marking my ballot.

Pakkinpoppa said...

It looks as if whatever Baby Ruth is left in the pool, will be what the Elephant Party offers.

To be fair, I did vote "for" W the first time, but enthusiasm for him (the use of a large part of the Bill of Rights as a doormat) waned pretty quickly.

The Freeholder said...

This kind of thing is what happens when your positions don't come from previously thought out principles, but from knee-jerk reactions.

I'm trying hard to do more of the former and less of the latter.

mikee said...

Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom advances the argument that Obama's policies are antithetical to the continuation of individual rights protected by a limited powers, republic form of government.

If one starts from that position, foreign policy is very hard to fathom,as there are multiple factors at play in any foreign entanglement beyond destruction of our previous form of government.

However, this perspective makes the President's domestic policy perfectly clear.

Anonymous said...

Good thing you didn't bring up Sub Sahelian Africa, heads might explode.
Oh wait, 100 JSOC dudes just went down there. Almost an invasion...

Brad K. said...

Anon 9:02,

"it comes down to supporting either a tyrant or an Islamist."

Foreign policy is supposed to be a grander strategy.

Policy would state something like "promote American business and security interests". Then, under that policy, you would have your best advisers figure out if one or the other does America less damage, or is likely to be a better proposition down the road.

America's security starts with a strong economy. A strong and stable economy is tough for opponents to make big waves in, and isn't prone to wild-eyed radicals and hobos taking a dump on city streets.

Next is security awareness. Businesses and vacationers pay attention to countries that are friendly to US interests, that aren't embroiled in military actions, aren't training mercenaries and terrorists. Americans should elect representatives that understand keeping foreign troops off US soil often means taking them apart before they launch their adventures.

The most visible part of national security is the ability to put Army and Marine boots, Air Force and Navy planes, and Navy ships where they can do the bashing and show "the flag" (i.e., effective military preparedness, on the doorstep of those folks that might have forgot). This takes trained military forces -- something important that the Sandbox has forged for us -- and ready military equipment.

Foreign policy should include "dismay to those opposed to us, so they don't thrive" and "support to those that support us". We should be nurturing friendships and convincing others to become friends, when we can. Then the details would include deciding to send corn or troops to this country or that, and choosing designs for this aircraft or that ship.

The snafu in Europe about finances, the continuation of the Bush/Obama "Too Big to Fail" deception ("Those folks donate too much money to us to let them go broke!"), is a huge part of foreign policy. Unfortunately, what the US has been doing doesn't seem to be good for America or Americans. One foreign policy choice here might be "No more funds to Europe without local referendum there and Senate approval here." The precedent for Senate review is the Senate responsibility to approve treaty signings; Obama just isn't calling the treaties and actions a "treaty", and is ignoring, again, the Senate. And the Senate lets him.

Spud said...

Just goes to prove that changing drivers doesn't do any good with a car which is running out of gas.

Stretch said...

Volvos with "Free Tibet!" stickers

The car in question was actually a Subaru and had a Obama '08 sticker as well. A few days after the Dalai Lama left the White House via the servant's entrance I helped a lady load furniture into her Subaru wagon. When I closed the hatch I saw the stickers and asked "Which one will you scrape off?"
A week later I saw the car in the local parking garage and sure 'nuff the Obama sticker was gone.

And any politician who uses the phrase "nation building" should be used as a lawn dart target.

Sparo said...

See Ron Paul. EOM.